In the course of an oh-so-predictably tiresome New York Times house editorial on the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo, I was very surprised to run across this cheap whack at Louisiana solicitor general Elizabeth Murrill:
Another factor that’s nearly certainly at play here is that the lawyer who argued for Louisiana during oral arguments in March, State Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill, is widely believed to have bungled the job, answering questions so ineptly that she gave the chief justice little to work with, even if he had been inclined to side with the court’s other conservatives.
The editorial goes on to contend that “the rights of millions of women hinged in part on someone having a bad day in court.”
I attended the oral argument in the case—more precisely, I ended up listening to the argument in the lawyers’ lounge—and Murrill’s oral argument struck me as well within the ordinary range of oral arguments at the Court. I’ve inquired of a couple of people who were in the courtroom, and their reaction was the same as mine. To be sure, the case was an especially difficult one to argue, both because it involved a complicated factual record and because Murrill faced a barrage of hostile questioning from the liberal justices. As is often the case, there is surely room for critics to engage in hindsight second-guessing of her argument. But the editorial board’s slam of Murrill strikes me as very unfair.
Note that the hyperlinked support for the editorial’s claim that Murrill is “widely believed to have bungled the job” is a single Slate piece by Mark Joseph Stern. Consistent with his usual level of propaganda, Stern contended that Murrill “lied” and made “falsifications of the record.” But a careful parsing of his charges shows that he was faulting Murrill for pushing back on the debatable inferences and characterizations of the record that the liberal justices were advancing as part of their attack on the favorable Fifth Circuit decision that Murrill was defending.
Why did the NYT editorial board go so strangely out of its way to disparage Murrill? I’ll hazard a conjecture. The editorial board presents itself as “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstandingvalues.” Foremost among those values is a commitment to unrestricted abortion as a supposed protection of (in the words of the editorial) “the bodily autonomy of American women.” That a highly accomplished female attorney like Murrill would vigorously defend Louisiana’s law (as her job as state solicitor called for her to do) threatens the progressive fiction that all intelligent and educated women must be pro-abortion. Murrill must be punished for betraying the Sisterhood.
The Vatican’s Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano “clarification” was supposed to finally come this year, but instead all that came from Francis was the coronavirus hysteria banning of Masses and support for COVID globalist tyranny.
Instead of an answer to Archbishop Vigano it appears that all that happened was possibly a Deep State globalist/Francis “’false flag’ operations” to “plant propaganda and diminish or discredit opponents.”
The award winning The Intercept revealed that Francis’s Argentina knows all about “false flag” operations as done by British intelligence:
“While the full extent of JTRIG’s tactics used in the Falklands mission is unclear, the scope of JTRIG’s approved capabilities offers an idea of what may have been done. The group, first revealed last year by NBC News and The Intercept, has developed various techniques — including “false flag” operations, sexual “honey traps,” and implanting computer viruses — to collect intelligence, plant propaganda and diminish or discredit opponents.”
“As reported in The Intercept last year, JTRIG ‘has developed covert tools to seed the internet with false information, including the ability to manipulate the results of online polls, artificially inflate pageview counts on web sites, ‘amplif[y]’ sanctioned messages on YouTube,’ and plant false Facebook wall posts for “entire countries.” According to a study of the group by the U.K.’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), “the language of JTRIG’s operations is characterized by terms such as ‘discredit,’ promote ‘distrust,’ ‘dissuade,’ ‘deceive,’ ‘disrupt,’ ‘delay,’ ‘deny,’ ‘denigrate/degrade,’ and ‘deter.’” [https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/
Here are some examples of Francis Vatican “’false flag’ operations” that happened before the Mother of all “’false flag’ operations” which is the coronavirus hysteria tyranny and, its addendum, the George Floyd riots:
in Lettergate, when the Letter came out all of the secular media, all of the leftist Catholic media and surprisingly the conservative Catholic media such as Life Site News as well as the traditional Catholic media such as the Remnant went along with the Francis Vatican’s disinformation that Pope Benedict XVI was 100 percent behind Francis’s failed papacy after reading 11 books on Francis’s teachings.
As soon as the letter came out the Catholic bloggers and Canon 212 immediately screamed in headlines that it was obviously fake news. The headline at the Catholic Monitor was:Benedict says Francis is “Profound” Philosopher, has X-Ray Vision & can Leap Tall Buildings in a Single Bound. The Internet and Twitter was flooded with similar headlines and twits calling the Letter fake news and ridiculing the idea that Benedict called Francis profound.
Francis’s Vatican, in the face of the Band of Bloggers ridiculing, blinked.
The seemingly all powerful Vatican media apparatus backed down, knuckled under, the Internet and Twitter confrontation of the Catholic blogger’s ridicule of the Letter.
The next day, the Vatican in a attempt to show that the Letter wasn’t fake admitted that Benedict hadn’t read the 11 books, after that they admitted to manipulating the photo and finally the great Vatican expert Sandro Magister, through his sources, revealed that there were missing paragraphs which showed Benedict refused to endorse the books and was angry that the 11 books had heretical theologians who had attacked him and Pope John Paul Il’s Vetitatis Splendor.
Anyone who has read Vetitatis Splendor knew that it condemns the teachings of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
The secular media and the Catholic media, after the facts started coming out, finally admitting the Band of Bloggers under the banner of Canon 212 were right.
They admitted that the Letter was fake news or a “false flag.” The Francis Vatican’s disinformation attempt to create the lie that there is no contradiction between Benedict and Francis’s failed papacy was outed by the Band of Bloggers and Canon 212. Remember the key questions to ask in “false flag” operations” are:“Who is lying?” and “Why are they lying?”:
Next, came the Barroslettergate or the Bishop Juan Barros sex abuse cover-up scandal, Francis said he had not received any evidence about the sex abuse case when a member of his inner circle of nine Cardinals and chief adviser on sex abuse personally deliver aletter of evidence to the Pope.
Who is lying and why? Next, came Hellgate and the questions that needed to be asked is:
Who is lying?
Why are they lying?
Here is lawyer Christopher Ferrara’s summary of Hellgate:
“This is the second time that Pope Francis, according to Scalfari, has professed the “annihilationist” heresy, the first being Scalfari’s interview of Francis in 2015. Even allowing for Scalfari’s self-admitted tendency to publish interviews with the Pope that are reconstructions rather than verbatim transcripts, the question remains: Is this in substance what the Pope said?”
“At this point, only one sort of denial will suffice: An unequivocal statement that Francis wishes it to be known that the words attributed to him by his friend are a total fabrication and that in no way, shape or form did Francis profess that there is no hell and that the souls of the damned are merely annihilated upon death.”
Finally, comes the Mother of all “’false flag’ operations” which is the coronavirus hysteria tyranny and, its addendum, the George Floyd hysteria riots with the questions of: “Who is lying?” and “Why are they lying?”Lawyer Scott Lively gives the answers to the above questions:- In this sequel he responds to a viewer who asks why the globalists would deliberately orchestrate the Coronavirus Pandemic when it does such harm to their own interests. He offers the analogy of chemotherapy, explaining that a cancer patient submits to chemotherapy — which is essentially self-poisoning — knowing it will harm him, but expecting that the poison will kill the cancer before it kills the patient. After the cancer is dead, the weakened but still living patient can be restored to health. Dr. Lively contends that the global elites perceive Donald Trump and the nationalist movement he represents as a cancer that will kill their dreams of a global socialist order. Other methods to try and get rid of Trump have all failed, so they are forced to resort to the more extreme method of political and economic chemotherapy in the hope that they can kill the Trump economy and administration while surviving the same poison.
He also brings China into the analysis, suggesting that China has a special interest in bringing down Trump after having lost their trade war with him, explaining their willingness to be ground zero of the pandemic. Dr. Lively reminds the viewers that China only became an economic superpower because the Clintons sold out America to reap benefits for themselves, overseeing the wholesale migration of US manufacturing to China, which incidentally vastly enriched Walmart Corporation where Hillary had served on the board from 1986-1992. Dr. Lively also suggests that the Clintons took their own chemotherapy in the form of the Monica Lewinsky scandal when Bill Clinton was rumored to be under investigation for treason (for selling US military secrets to China), knowing that a sex scandal, while painful, was far more survivable than a possible indictment for treason. [https://www.scottlively.net/2020/03/12/is-the-coronavirus-pandemic-globalist-chemotherapy/]
– “The main purpose of the rioting, as was true of the now-waning COVID-19 Plandemic, is to spread fear. Fear is what keeps a sizable portion of the American people “sheltered-in-place,” and that phenomenon of social destabilization is the key to preventing economic recovery. An orchestrated economic depression is, of course, the cornerstone of the elites’ plan for taking down President Trump (which I again predict will fail).” “That’s what this season of Psy-Ops, with all its disinformation, propaganda and political intrigue, has always been about from its very beginning, when Barack Obama first began to realize that Trump could actually beat Hillary, thanks to the sabotage of the HRC campaign and the DNC by Bernie zealot Seth Rich, the Wikileaker whistleblower who was (I opine) murdered in broad daylight for that act of treachery.“
“The timing of the rioting, and his immediate, highly inflammatory public statement, betrays the hand of Barack Obama behind it all… “
“… Lastly, I am also offering a different take on the significance of the riots. Yes, the fearmongering agenda is still in play, but I think there’s a new target for that fear added to the mix: Democratic leaders who now realize heads will likely roll for the Obama team’s actions and want to distance themselves as much as possible without being too obvious about it. I think that’s why the race riots and Antifa aggressions are taking place in Democratic strongholds and not places like Ferguson and Charlottesville. They are reminders that pain can be inflicted on potential “traitors” as well as established enemies by the ones who wield the real power on the left.”
“And, call me crazy, but if that’s true, I predict master deal-maker President Trump may actually flip some Democratic leaders to his side by the time of the election. It’s a rare group of crooks that doesn’t turn on each other when actual prosecutors (as opposed to media pundits) start to draft actual indictments of their known associates.” [https://www.wnd.com/2020/06/obamagate-race-riots/]
Remember the Vatican’s Archbishop Vigano “clarification” was supposed to finally come this year, but instead all that came from Francis was the coronavirus hysteria banning of Masses and support for the COVID-RIOTS “’false flag’ operations” of the globalist tyranny.
Remember: DEEP STATE “false flag” operations… [are]to…. plant propaganda and diminish or discredit opponents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.SHARE
Russia Generating the Growing Social Disorder in the West
By David Martin
In the wake of the race-riots that have imperiled our nation, it has become evident that the forces of Communism are alive and active in our world. For the George Floyd killing was orchestrated by deep-state socialists to frame America’s police and instigate nationwide riots.
None less than high-ranking state officials have been used to set this red revolution in motion. Governor Jay Inslee’s call for an anarchist autonomous zone in Seattle is a classic Communist maneuver to try to bring down the government. Governor Newsom of California likewise showed his Leninist colors when he told rioters, “I want you to know that you matter. To those who want to express themselves [riotously]… Keep doing it. Your rage is real.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/your-rage-is-real-gavin-newsom-tells-california-protesters/ar-BB14THDJ
What we are looking at is deep-seated Communist activity [KGB] operating at the highest levels of our government. The issue of race has simply been used as a tool to instigate civil violence.
Revolutions are Planned
The present unrest in America was planned. In his 1945 release, The Tactics of Communism, Abp. Fulton Sheen cites Earl Browder, the then Vice-President of the International Communist Party as saying that Communism establishes itself by revolution that is made. “The revolution does not simply happen, it must be made.” (Earl Browder, What is Communism?, p. 163.)
According to Browder, it is not the working class [proletariat] but the Communist Party that makes the revolution. “The revolution is carried out by the great masses of toilers. The Communist Party as the vanguard of the most conscious toilers acts as their organizer and guide.” (Ibid., p. 163.)
The revolution begins with riots and looting aimed at overthrowing institutionalized authority and police. “Revolution signifies the forceful invasion of the proletariat into the domain of property. The conquest of power by the proletariat is the violent overthrow of … armies, [and] police.”
Following the overthrow of governments, the proletariat (rioters, looters, workers) are often jailed and killed. As Browder states, Communism tolerates no rival parties. “The essential difference between the existence of parties in the Western world and with us Communists, is that the sole possibility with Communism is the following: One party is in power and all the others are in jail.” (Troud, November 13, 1927.)
It’s important to point out that the Communist Party has its headquarters in Moscow from which it exerts its influence and control in the West. And while it is generally believed that Communism fell in the early 90s, the Communists have continued building their forces to this day. The “operation of error to believe lying” (2 Thess. 2:10) has all but bewitched the West, the major lie being that Communist Russia collapsed.
Russia’s strategy is to conceal its plan for world domination under the guise of a power collapse, in keeping with Lenin’s strategy: “When you are strong, feign weakness.” As they finalize their plan for world conquest they don’t want the world to suspect what they’re about to do (invade the west), so the bear has been playing dead while secretly building its strength against its archenemy the United States.
Consider Mikhail Gorbachev’s famous speech to the Soviet Politburo in November 1987:
“Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.
We want to accomplish three things: One, we want the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe. Two, we want them to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe. Three, we want the Americans to stop proceeding with Strategic Defense Initiative.”
Acclaimed author Christopher C. Horner was on target when he said that “the Reds of yesterday are the Greens of today.” Russia’s strength has never been more evident. If the world believes that Communism died, it only testifies to the great power that Russia presently exerts over the western mind. The Bible foretold how in the last times the northern enemy would deceive the world with its “operation of error.” The beast of the Apocalypse is staging this disappearing act in the anticipation of the greatest assault ever to befall the human race – World War III and the annihilation of billions!
This insidious ruse is recorded in Holy Scripture. In Apocalypse 17 it speaks of the beast of the last days that “was, and is not,” and then returns from the bottomless pit to “go into destruction” so that the deceived inhabitants of the earth “shall wonder, seeing the beast that was, and is not.” (17:8)
Communist Russia [U.S.S.R.] is the beast that “was, and is not.” That is, it appears to not exist right now, but the red bear will soon re-emerge onto the world scene and go forward with her destructive plan so that the inhabitants of the earth indeed “shall wonder,” seeing the reappearance of the superpower that everyone thought had collapsed.
The Urgent Need to Consecrate Russia
The present world condition is a solemn reminder of the need to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Blessed Virgin at Fatima warned in 1917—the year of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia—that if the Church didn’t heed Her requests to procure Russia’s conversion through the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, the errors of that nation would spread throughout the world fomenting revolution, strife, and a major persecution of the Church. (Look what’s happening now to the underground Catholics in China!)
Unfortunately, Russia was not consecrated and consequently did not convert, and as such, is generating the present surge of terror activity in the West. One day must be set aside in which the pope in union with the world’s bishops officially entrust Russia to Our Lady through this collegial Consecration. The Consecration is needed to neutralize this diabolical force of Communist Russia, that it might cease from its path of destruction and become an instrument to help spread the True Apostolic Faith.
Without the Consecration of Russia the present surge of Communist activity will only continue. And while just laws and executive orders to guard America from deep-state activity can avail us some protection, Russia will continue to foment riots and social disorder as long as this belligerent nation isn’t consecrated to the Immaculate Heart.
In the final analysis, Russia’s action upon the West will be a divine chastisement for having allowed ourselves to be lured by Russia’s deception. God will use Russia as his scourge to whip the West for its having heeded the red serpent’s allurements to forsake the Commandments and flow with the new order of rebellion and change. It will suddenly dawn on us in the end that it was Russia that gave us our new-age lifestyle of “rock-and-roll,” promiscuity, sodomy, and the new feminist revolution, in keeping with Lenin’s plan for starting revolution: “Corrupt the young: get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.”
The past 50 years of spiritual revolution indeed has paved the way to all-out revolution in our streets so it is urgent that America and the West make amends and recite the daily Rosary as requested by Our Lady at Fatima, remembering always Her intentions for the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, that peace may finally ensue.
Murder by lockdown: details from a dozen countriesMake that 13, plus one city, New York(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)The reference here is a stunning May 23 article by John Pospichal,“Questions for lockdown apologists,” posted at medium[dot]com.
Pospichal examined overall mortality numbers for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England and Wales, France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ecuador, and New York City.
Supported by charts, here are excerpts from his article: “We now have mortality data for the first few months of 2020 for many countries, and, as you might expect, there were steep increases associated with the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in each one.”
“Surprisingly, however, these increases did not begin before the lockdowns were imposed, but after. Moreover, in almost every case, they began immediately after. Often, mortality numbers were on a downward trend before suddenly reversing course after lockdowns were decreed.”
“This is an astonishing finding…”
“You will notice that only after each country (or city) was locked down did the increases begin. Moreover, they began immediately, and in nearly every case, precipitously.”
“All this leads us to the following questions, which we pose to all those who continue to defend the use of lockdowns as an effective means to prevent excess deaths.”
“Q: Why was there no significant increase in overall mortality, in any country we have good data for, before the start of lockdowns?”
“Q: Why does a precise and exact correlation exist between the start of lockdowns and significant rises in overall mortality?”
“Q: How is it that governments in every country imposed lockdowns at precisely the same time relative to the future precipitous rise in their populations’ overall mortality rate?”
“Q: How is it, moreover, that this moment in time [i.e., the imposition of lockdowns] happened to fall immediately before that precipitous rise?”
“Q: If health authorities vastly underestimated the prevalence of the virus at the beginning of the pandemic, why did the virus nevertheless wait until lockdowns were imposed to suddenly start killing at levels which exceeded normal deaths?”
—To that last question, I would respond: No virus would wait. We’re not talking about a virus at all. We’re talking about the sudden effects of the lockdowns.
And those sudden death-effects would come crashing down, first, and immediately, on the most vulnerable people in these countries:
The elderly, who were already ill for years.
THE LOCKDOWNS FORCED THE PREMATURE DEATHS OF OLD PEOPLE.
PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN SUFFERING FROM MULTIPLE HEALTH CONDITIONS FOR YEARS, WHO HAD BEEN TREATED WITH TOXIC MEDICAL DRUGS, WHOSE IMMUNE SYSTEMS WERE ALREADY SEVERELY COMPROMISED…
AND WHO ARE SUDDENLY TERRIFIED BY TWO MORE FACTORS—THE POSSIBILITY OF A COVID-19 DIAGNOSIS, AND ISOLATION FROM FRIENDS AND FAMILY. THESE TWO FACTORS PUSH THEM OVER THE EDGE AND THEY DIE.
Especially in nursing homes; but also in hospitals, and in their homes.
This is the true face of “COVID.”
This is how the case numbers and the death numbers are being propped up all over the world, to yield the impression of a virus on the loose.
Without those huge numbers, the whole vicious charade of a pandemic would be exposed and rejected at once.
The lockdowns are a method of killing.
The governors and mayors and presidents and prime ministers who imposed the lockdowns—and behind them, the planners of “COVID”— have been killing old people.
blog[dot]nomorefakenews[dot]com/2020/07/01/murder-by-lockdown-details-from-a-dozen-countries/ Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.Jon RappoportThe author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
With the words “under any circumstances,” Joe Biden signaled Monday that he supports the killing of unborn babies for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy.
The presumed Democrat presidential nominee, Biden has been adopting an increasingly extreme pro-abortion stance. While polls consistently show most Americans oppose late-term and taxpayer-funded abortions, Biden has supported both in his campaign.
“Women’s health care rights have been under attack as states across the country have passed extreme laws restricting women’s constitutional right to choice under any circumstance,” Biden said Monday in response to the news. “Today the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that states cannot put in place laws that unduly burden a women’s right to make her own health care decision with her doctor.”
A “right to choice under any circumstances” under Roe v. Wade means unborn babies can be aborted for any reason — including for sex-selection, a cleft lip or simply inconvenience – at any stage of pregnancy.
Though states may restrict abortions after viability under Roe, they do not have to, and some states have no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Apparently, that is Biden’s vision for the future in America.
Biden repeatedly has promised to support abortion on demand by “codifying” Roe v. Wadeinto federal law.
“As president, I will codify Roe v. Wade and my Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate a woman’s protected, constitutional right to choose,” he said Monday.
By supporting the infamous abortion case, he supports some of the most radical pro-abortion laws in the world. The 1973 ruling made the U.S. one of only seven countries in the world that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. It prevents states from passing even modest protections for unborn babies prior to viability, and, if Biden takes office, protections for unborn babies post-viability could go away, too.
Unlike most Americans, Biden also supports taxpayer-funded abortions. If he would succeed in this goal, tens of thousands more unborn babies could be slaughtered in abortions every year in America. Evident by his praise of the Supreme Court decision, he opposes protections for women against shoddy abortion practices, too.
A new poll from Gallup shows his position is radically out of touch with most Americans. The poll found 55% of Americans take a pro-life position on abortion, wanting all (21%) or almost all (39%) abortions made illegal. According to the poll, only 29% of Americans agree with pro-abortion preside Biden that all abortions should be completely legal without restriction.
A CBS News poll from June also found that the majority of Americans oppose killing unborn babies in abortions or want more limits on abortion. The poll found 43% of Americans think abortions should be generally available while 55% of Americans say it either should be more limited or should not be permitted.
Voters do not want abortion on demand, but the billion-dollar abortion industry does and pro-abortion groups spend tens of millions of dollars on elections each year. Biden is aligning himself with them, not with the American people or the rights of the most vulnerable human beings in the country.
Death by killing old people, not COVID—the basic deception(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)[BREAKING—UPDATE: The New York Times (June 27) is reporting that 43 percent of all US COVID deaths are occurring in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities for the elderly. In at least 24 states, more than 50 percent of all COVID deaths are occurring in these facilities. The Times fails to mention deaths of the elderly at hospitals or, at home, cut off from family and friends. The situation is far worse than the Times makes it out to be.]
Continuing my series of articles on the killing of the elderly—which IS what “COVID” IS.
The medical establishment is facing the embarrassing and devastating fact that a huge percentage of so-called COVID deaths are occurring in nursing homes. The elderly are dying prematurely.
And not only in nursing homes. In hospitals, and alone in their apartments.
All told, huge numbers of old people are dying premature deaths.
It’s obvious these patients have many serious and long-standing health conditions that have NOTHING to do with a virus. They’ve been treated for decades with toxic medical drugs. Their immune systems are severely compromised.
THEN they’re terrified when they’re handed a diagnosis of COVID-19 based on fraudulent tests, or no tests at all. They’re shut off completely from the outside world. No family or friends are permitted to see them. So the elderly die.
You want to see some astonishing numbers? Let’s go to the “epicenter.” New York City.
Using worldometers[dot]info for data, I looked at the latest figures available.
As of May 13, take these two age groups—65 to 74, and 75 and older—and together they account for a staggering 73.6 percent of all COVID deaths in the city.
The 75 and older group accounts, all on its own, for 48.7 percent of all COVID deaths in the city.
For THIS, New York is on lockdown. Boarded up. Imprisoned. Economically torpedoed and devastated. With two ignoramus-vampires—Governor Cuomo and Mayor De Blasio—hovering over its shoulders.
If you subtracted the premature and forced deaths of the elderly, the fiction of New York as “the epicenter of COVID” would blow away in the wind in five minutes.
In case you missed it, in a piece I wrote a few days ago, I added yet one more factor to the murderous New York formula:
The Hill, undated (late April 2020), reporting on “data…gathered at Northwell Health, New York state’s largest hospital system. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) examines 5,700 patients hospitalized with coronavirus infections in the New York City region, with final outcomes recorded for 2,634 patients. The average patient age was 63 years old… For the next oldest age group, ages 66 years and older, patients receiving mechanical [breathing] ventilation recorded a 97.2 percent mortality rate.”
Just in case all the other obvious factors failed to produce premature death in the elderly, ventilators provided the method.
Don’t even think of saying, “Well, you see, those old people put on ventilators were already very sick and close to dying.” NO medical treatment that kills 97.2 percent of patients in a well-defined group is continued, unless there are orders mandating it. Unless there is added insurance money to be made from it. Unless the doctors are willing to keep using the treatment, despite the results.
New York—the “epicenter of the pandemic”—is an epicenter of killing old people.
Public health agencies think: “How can we falsely explain all these old people dying, in terms that will operate as a diversion and a cover story?”
And they come up with: “Well, of course these elderly people already had medical problems before the COVID virus came along, and yes, these problems contributed to their demise. But in the end, the cause of death was the VIRUS…”
A convenient and false statement.
So let’s look at this VIRUS. Again.
For the fourth or fifth time since I started writing about the “pandemic,” I’ll go back to the beginning. To the claim that a new virus was discovered in China. The one that is supposedly causing the global catastrophe.
Instead of blithely accepting the claim that the virus was “sequenced” and its genetic makeup was laid out, I offer the following—
Do the study you never did. Do something coherent. Since you announced a global pandemic affecting billions of lives, do a real study.
Gather together a thousand people you claim are suffering from the “epidemic disease,” and take tissue samples from them. In the real world. Now, under proper supervision, with independent observers recording on video every single step of the process, CORRECTLY put these samples through a purifying procedure that involves centrifuging them, and extracting the relevant material—and place small bits of this material under an electron microscope. Take photos (EMs) of what you see.
Now place these thousand photos side by side. In each photo, do you see many, many particles of what is unmistakably a virus? Is it a virus you’ve never seen before? From photo to photo, are the many particles of this new virus all the same?
When you’ve done that, let another set of technicians follow the same procedure, and see what they come up with.
If by THESE standards, you really think you’ve found a new virus, call me.
I’m not interested in what you’re “genetically sequencing” in the lab. It could be a partial virus of no concern, a decaying irrelevant virus, a piece of random genetic material, cellular debris, exosomes, a common-cold coronavirus, who knows what? And if a hundred labs start with the same who-knows-what sample, and all the labs come up with the same genetic sequence, this proves nothing.
There is no procedure that can climb inside a person’s body and record what is happening in real time at the level of a virus—but the closest you can come is the electron microscope procedure I’ve described above.
You didn’t do that procedure. Don’t come at me with a few random anecdotal cases from here and there, in which you did take electron microscope photos. Don’t tap dance.
The planet went on lockdown as a result of what you claim you discovered—so do the coherent study I outlined. Go the whole distance. That’s what science is supposed to do. And then other teams of researchers can weigh in with their own large electron microscope studies and confirm or deny your findings.
Meanwhile, do you know what you have? An unproven virus. A fake. A story about a virus.
Therefore, all your diagnostic tests “for the new virus” are a sham. They’re based on something you never demonstrated in the first place.
—Therefore, all those people, those elderly people dying for obvious reasons in nursing homes, and in their lonely apartments, and in hospitals all over the world? You obviously have no proof they’re dying from a virus. How could you? You never properly discovered a new virus. You have dust in your hands. Saying these elderly people died as a result of the COVID virus is meaningless.
Actually you have murder. You have blood on your hands. Your death-dealing COVID diagnosis of these old people is the final straw that drives them into terror and over the edge into death. You have that to answer for.
In this article I decided to lift the cover on the whole sordid mess—going to the root. It was necessary, because the medical “experts” keep falling back on THE VIRUS to explain away all objections. The truth is right in front of their eyes—it’s obvious why all these old people are dying, and why fake scientists and medical fraudsters must count their deaths as COVID cases.
Without those gigantic death numbers, the illusion of a pandemic would fall apart in an hour.
THE OLD PEOPLE ARE DYING FROM TERROR AND LONELINESS ON TOP OF ALL THEIR LONG-STANDING HEALTH CONDITIONS AND THE TOXIC TREATMENTS THEY RECEIVED FOR YEARS. Period. No virus needed.
They’re dying in nursing homes, in isolated apartments and houses all over the world, and in hospitals. And on their bodies is built this vicious war against the population of the planet.
* thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/medical-advances/494274-nearly-half-of-all-patients-placed-onUse this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.Jon RappoportThe author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the
At the Collin County meeting, Aisha Souri of the county’s epidemiology department explained how the state’s revised definition for COVID-19 probable cases allows for those labeled as “probable” carriers to be counted as “confirmed cases.”
“So, for a confirmed case it stays the same, you still just need PCR [lab results]. But, now they’ve added a probable case definition. So, that still gets counted towards the case count. It’s different, it’s not ‘confirmed,’ it’s ‘probable,’ but it’s still a case,” she said.
Souri continued, “Meaning, if you use another testing method, not PCR, and if you have close contact with a confirmed or probable case – and if you did that lab work that was not a PCR you could be considered a case with or without symptoms.”
In another segment of the video, the epidemiologist went over a diagram showing how one “confirmed” COVID case who had contact with sixteen individuals would be counted as a total of 17 COVID cases by the CDC under the new “probable case definition.”
Next, Collin County Judge Chris Hill said the state of Texas “elected to adopt this new probable definition.”
He went on to describe how people with minor symptoms will now be counted as actual COVID cases, saying, “If you have a subjective fever and you have a headache, and you live in Collin County, you now meet the qualifications to be a probable COVID patient. It is remarkable how low the standard is now.”
“If you have one of the major symptoms, you have a cough or you have shortness of breathe, and you live in Collin County, then you can satisfy the definition for a probable COVID case,” he noted. “But I’m very concerned that we absolutely could see the numbers jump very rapidly in a way that is actually not indicative of what we’re seeing here in the community in the Public Health Department.”
The definition for COVID deaths was also updated, as Sauri told the Collin County Commissioners Court, “previously, prior to this definition, it was only if you had a positive PCR result that you would be counted as someone who died related to COVID-19. But now, lab testing is no longer required to be counted towards that.”
Meanwhile, coinciding with this artificial inflation of COVID-19 cases, mainstream media is hyping up the “second wave” of coronavirus, even claiming it will be “10 times more infectious” than the first round.
The Center for Medical Progress released horrific new video footage Tuesday showing a Planned Parenthood partner admitting that body parts were harvested from aborted babies who still had beating hearts.
The video exposes the testimonies of several top Planned Parenthood officials and a human tissue procurement company leader during a 2019 sworn legal deposition.
Perhaps the most horrific testimony came from Perrin Larton, the procurement manager of Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR), which harvests aborted baby body parts at Planned Parenthood facilities in southern California.
In her sworn testimony, Larton admitted that she has seen aborted babies’ hearts “beating independently” after they are born. She also confirmed that some aborted babies’ bodies are fully intact.
Larton explained that most aborted babies come out of the womb in pieces, but sometimes ABR sees fully intact bodies. Asked about those situations, Larton replied, “They just, sometimes they fall out” of the mother when she delivers the baby in the abortion operating room. When questioned about how often that occurs, she replied, “Once every couple months.”
Asked what happens next, Larton said an ABR staffer will “do a dissection” on the intact aborted baby “to get the tissues that the researchers have requested.” When asked if the babies that just “fall out” have a heartbeat, Larton said, “It would depend,” because “I can see hearts that are not in an intact P.O.C. [product of conception, meaning aborted baby] that are beating independently.”
Also important to note, ABR sells aborted baby body parts to researchers whose projects are funded by U.S. taxpayers.
Other testimony in the video came from Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the former senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood nationally. Nucatola was caught in the first Center for Medical Progress video eating salad and sipping wine while talking about how she “crushes” unborn babies’ heads to better harvest their body parts.
In the new video, Nucatola was asked if she had “ever had a patient deliver in the operating room a non-viable fetus.”
Nucatola then was pressed repeatedly to define “non-viable.” At first, she defined it as “a fetus that’s not capable of survival.” But when asked how to determine if a baby is viable, she responded, “It depends on where you work.” Questioned again, Nucatola said viability partially depends on the baby’s gestational age, weight and health. However, she also included “the availability of interventions” in her criteria.
This raises serious questions about if Planned Parenthood is allowing babies who would be considered viable in a hospital to die because the abortion facility does not have “available interventions” such as medical equipment or staff to care for the baby and arrange for his/her transportation to a hospital.
According to the Center for Medical Progress, Nucatola used to be in charge of setting the national Medical Standards & Guidelines for all Planned Parenthoods. She also aborted unborn babies at the Los Angeles Planned Parenthood, which harvests aborted baby body parts for Novogenix Laboratories.
Dunn said he knows of one baby was born alive at one of his affiliate’s abortion facilities.
“I know they kept it warm and comfortable for the very brief period that it was alive. I don’t think there was even time to call 911,” Dunn said. Later, he added: “This is something that every obstetrician/gynecologist deals with on rare occasion. … It is their medical judgment what to do in that circumstance.”
Center for Medical Progress project lead David Daleiden urged authorities to take action immediately based on the horrific new evidence.
“How long will public authorities permit Planned Parenthood and their associates to sell living children inside and outside the womb and then kill them through organ harvesting?” Daleiden asked. “The [Department of Justice] has vigorously prosecuted the sale of eagle body parts. Surely selling human body parts after cutting them out of an infant with a beating heart is at least as grave of a crime.”
For years now, Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress have been uncovering shocking details about Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices, including the harvesting of aborted baby body parts for research.
Planned Parenthood repeatedly has denied all allegations of wrong-doing, and many news outlets now parrot its talking points that the initial Center for Medical Progress videos were deceptively edited or debunked. An independent forensics investigation verified that the videos were authentic.
The expose videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all 14:
In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.
The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.
The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies. The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.
Unreleased Videos: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb Vanderhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.
The 11th video: catches a Texas Planned Parenthood abortionist planning to sell the intact heads of aborted babies for research. Amna Dermish is caught on tape describing an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term unborn babies which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.
The 12th video in the series shows new footage of Jennefer Russo, medical director at Planned Parenthood in Orange County, California, describing to undercover investigators how her abortion business tries to harvest intact aborted babies’ bodies for a local for-profit biotech company and changes the abortion procedure to do so.
The 13th video: exposes a Planned Parenthood medical director admitting that babies born alive after abortion are sometimes killed.
The 14th video: catches Planned Parenthood executives discussing gruesome abortion procedures and the sale of body parts from aborted babies for profit.
Tucker Carlson used his opening monologue tonight to beg Republicans to stop being Democrats. Most of what Carlson outlines is accurate, especially the “Nikki Haley waiting in the wings” to return to the UniParty rules part.
Pokey says:July 1, 2020 at 11:13 amTucker has always been a believer in our Constitution and he is, like myself, very afraid of what becomes of our Constitution if we lose this election. The left are throwing up every road block they can think of because they also know this is the year they have to win. The fallout will be terrible, no matter how it come out in November. So, everyone better have their boots on for this election. Do not settle for allowing potential Trump voters to just give up instead of fight to win this election. We need everyone to be all in.Liked by 8 peopleReply
zorroridessays:July 1, 2020 at 12:35 pmTucker’s point is that the Republican office holders, party, and voters must NOW BEGIN DOING EVERYTHING THEY DO AS IF THEY BELIEVE the Constitutional Citizenry’s responsible, ethical, republican code for living.Instead, the DC Republicans don’t lift a finger to assist Trump. Tucker said YOU must convince your personal office holders to change their attitudes immediately.LikeReply
mugdillersays:July 1, 2020 at 11:33 amTucker’s family was terrorized by Antifa last year and had to move from their home (he was not at home and his wife hid in the pantry while thugs pounded on the front door, then later tagged his driveway). He’s a man on a mission.Liked by 4 peopleReply
Caius Lowellsays:July 1, 2020 at 11:34 amOne of my so-called “conservative” friends has worked with both Romney and Rubio, which makes me believe he isn’t very conservative at all. There’s an asymmetric incentive dynamic at play here that SD has mentioned. That is, conservatives can never outwork liberals because conservatives have talent and interests outside of politics. For liberals, Democrats, socialists, Labour, and communists, politics is all they do and all they think about. Political power is their god.Liked by 5 peopleReply
Caius Lowellsays:July 1, 2020 at 12:16 pmLook at that diversity! Why don’t ray-cyst Americans appreciate it? Why it’s just like a little bit of Nairobi, Lagos, Tripoli, Jakarta, or Caracas right here in America! Thank you god-king 0bama for bringing this diversity to America! 0bama akbar! 0bama akbar! /sarcLikeReply
Mr e-man says:July 1, 2020 at 12:26 pmThe first year we invaded Iraq 600 American soldiers died. I saw that same year 600 black kids were murdered in Chicago. And 600 in Detroit. And 600 in NYC. And almost 600 in Baltimore, and on and on. I realized those cities are war zones. Now here we are 2 decades later and the same number of people are being murdered. Black Lies Matter doesn’t care about black lives. They care about winning elections so they can graft onto money and spend it on themselves. If they cared, they would be protesting against the murderers in those neighborhoods. Fat chance of that. And it isn’t becasue of the police.Liked by 3 peopleReply
maxxheadroom777 says:July 1, 2020 at 12:08 pmWe now get a half-dozen emails a day from “Trump” and the RNC, asking for money. We reply to every single one saying, “We support President Trump. We despise RNC. We do not want one red cent of my money going to RNC. How do we do that?” So far, no reply. Grrrrrrowl….Liked by 2 peopleReply
Kaco says:July 1, 2020 at 12:51 pmWe need to tell the Republicans that we do NOT support Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter is a communist, marxist organization funded by George Soros and operated his goons. Furthermore, any financial support going to BLM is going to Act Blue. So we need to tell our Republican congressmen, you are supporting Democrat politicians when you support BLM and they are supposed to be the GOP. And BLM has proven themselves time and again, they are a violent, radical, anarchist group. We do not approve of statues or history removed. We do not approve of unlawful behavior or disorder.They need to brand the GOP the party of all that Tucker said, equal under the law, equal opportunity. Also, that they are the party of peace, not violence and rebellion. That they are the party of American citizens first. We really need to nail them on that one.I will start writing my GOP Representative and one Republican Senator.LikeReply
tieoneoncharter.comsays:July 1, 2020 at 12:55 pmAlmost Half of Congress are Lawyers…..Both Democrat and Republican…..Politically connected Lawyers protect other Politically connected Lawyers regardless of Party affiliation…..We are a Republic run by corrupt Lawyers, corrupt Politician Lawyers, Judges and un-elected Bureaucrat Lawyers(FBI, SCOTUS John Roberts)…..The corrupt Judicial allows it all…..Corrupt Lawyers are destroying our Republic…..75-80% of Lawyers are registered Democrats….You tell me where the problem is…LikeReply
Lessons from Gettysburg: A Conversation with Professor Allen Guelzo
JUNE 30, 2020BY HOWARD L. MUNCY AND ALLEN C. GUELZOFor Abraham Lincoln, the victory at Gettysburg appeared almost as a ratification of the Declaration of Independence and its principles.
Tourists, reenactors, and history enthusiasts annually converge at Gettysburg for the first three days of July to honor the historic 1863 battle. But as with so many other events, the Covid-19 pandemic has either altered or canceled those plans in 2020. Across the nation, protests connected to the violent deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor have also sparked another form of unrest for an already anxious country. Current discussions surrounding race and social justice have once again drawn the nation’s attention to the stain of slavery, the history of the Civil War, and many other peripheral issues, such as monuments and war memory.
Historically, the hallowed ground of Gettysburg has offered important lessons of the past, present, and future to many generations of Americans. I recently interviewed Dr. Allen Guelzo to explore this enduring legacy.
Howard Muncy: I would like to begin with your thoughts on how Gettysburg emerged as an important American symbol in the immediate aftermath of the battle. In your book Gettysburg: The Last Invasion, you claimed that contemporary Americans realized they had just experienced “something worth dying to protect, something worth communicating to the living.”
Dr. Allen Guelzo: People understood the significance of the Battle of Gettysburg almost before it was finished. In fact, the third day of the battle had not yet reached its completion when the first tourists to the battlefield showed up. So even while the shooting was still in progress, people were already making a pilgrimage to the battlefield. That sounds to us not only risky, but incredible. And yet, people did perceive that this was an important conflict. It was seen that way for several reasons. One, this was Robert E. Lee’s great gambit to invade the North. And by invading the North, what he hoped to do was at the very most, encounter the federal Army of the Potomac and inflict a defeat on it. But at the very least, he wanted to move into Pennsylvania and demonstrate the weakness and inability of the Lincoln administration to protect its own territory.
Either way, by inflicting a defeat on a federal army or simply by occupying Northern territory with impunity, Lee believed that the political damage would be so great as to cripple the Lincoln administration, force it to the negotiating table, and bring an end to the war. And virtually everybody believed that once negotiations with the Confederacy began, there was really no likelihood of going back to hostilities. It would have amounted to a recognition of the Confederacy’s independence.
Another factor was the sheer size of the battle. Gettysburg was an epic struggle over three days and involved hundreds of thousands of men on each side. The totals were staggering, with around 50,000 casualties over the course of the three-day battle. At the upper end of the estimate, historians believe approximately 9,000 soldiers from both armies were killed outright. Those numbers made immediate headlines. What was significant as the weeks went by was not only that this battle had been a tremendous affair, but that Lee had suffered, and the Confederacy with him, a serious repulse. After three days of fighting Lee was forced to withdraw, and his army could have easily been surrounded and captured. That would have been an end to the war in a very different direction. But as it turned out, Lee crossed the Potomac and escaped back into Virginia, much to Lincoln’s intense and furious disappointment. Nevertheless, the battle itself was an important victory for the federal Army of the Potomac, which had up to that point sustained numerous defeats. Gettysburg repulsed Lee and his overall plan to affect Northern public opinion.
Gettysburg was an epic struggle over three days and involved hundreds of thousands of men on each side. The totals were staggering, with around 50,000 casualties over the course of the three-day battle.
Above all, reports from Gettysburg came to President Lincoln on the same weekend as did the news from the West about the fall of the Confederate citadel at Vicksburg on the Mississippi River. The fact that the news of these two victories came on a Fourth of July weekend seemed immensely, almost providentially, symbolic to Lincoln. At an impromptu gathering at the White House of well-wishers, Lincoln spoke on that particular Fourth of July weekend about how, just over eighty years before, the United States had been formed around the proposition that all men had been created equal. Now, on that very same anniversary, had come two tremendous victories. These victories appeared almost as a ratification of the Declaration of Independence and its principles. Lincoln took them as a symbol. And when he comes at the invitation of David Wills of Gettysburg to speak of the dedication of the cemetery, it moves him to talk not just about the cemetery, not just about dedication, but about the entire reason that the war is being fought.
HM: You have stated that the November 1863 dedication at Gettysburg bordered on something of “a national revival.” Much of this idea is couched in Lincoln’s bold concept of a new birth of freedom. Americans often associate years like 1776, 1789, etc. as the most important on the American continuum. But where would you rank 1863 in terms of significance?
Guelzo: 1863 is the date when we passed our final exam. Lincoln said in his Gettysburg address that fourscore and seven years ago the fathers had created this Republic “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Lincoln then switched to the present 1863, we are involved now in this great Civil War and we’re met on a battlefield of that Civil War. But what had happened in 1863? Lincoln continued: We are testing whether this nation “or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.”
Lincoln once made the comment that popular governments, governments that rest sovereignty in the people, like the American Republic, must undergo three tests. The first test is the creation of the government itself. The second test is getting it up and operating. And the third test comes when it must resist attack from insurgencies within. Lincoln had believed—and this runs all the way back to his first great speech in 1838 on what he called “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions”—that the American Republic could likely never be overthrown by outside attack. Lincoln said if there is going to be an end to the American Republic, we are probably going to be responsible for it ourselves, and it will come from within. This thinking informed those three tests that he thought a Republic had to pass.
Lincoln believed that the American Republic could likely never be overthrown by outside attack. Lincoln said if there is going to be an end to the American Republic, we are probably going to be responsible for it ourselves, and it will come from within.
The American Civil War was exactly what he described as that third test. Can we survive an attempt from within to destroy the American Republic? Lincoln believed that what had happened at Gettysburg and what was happening in the Civil War was the third test. If we dedicated ourselves to the principles of the Republic with the same fervor that those soldiers had dedicated themselves—even to the point of “the last full measure of devotion”—then we would indeed experience a new birth of freedom. It resembled a revival meeting at which the term “new birth,” since the days of the eighteenth century, meant a renewal of spiritual vigor. If we could dedicate ourselves that way, we would experience exactly that new birth, and America would pass that final exam that a Republic must pass. That is what he exhorted people to in the closing sentences of the Gettysburg Address. If that happened, Americans would not only experience that new birth, but it would ensure that government of the people, by the people, for the people would not perish from the earth.
It was significant in its own way that Lincoln even chose to go to Gettysburg on November 19th, 1863. Lincoln did not often stray outside of Washington, D.C. during the war. He turned down numerous invitations to speak at various places around the North. The only times he did leave his post in the Executive Mansion were to go south into Virginia to visit the armies, to review troops, and to consult with his generals. Otherwise Lincoln, who was something of a workaholic, tended not to stray very far from Washington. Accepting the invitation to come to Gettysburg was itself significant. Simply by the fact of his going there, he gave evidence of the importance he attached to Gettysburg.
HM: On my first visit to Gettysburg, a monument that really caught my attention was the Eternal Light Peace Memorial. The large monument, composed of Maine granite and Alabama limestone, was dedicated in 1938 during another calamity—the Great Depression. It seemed to suggest efforts toward a national healing. What lessons of reconciliation do you think Gettysburg holds?
Guelzo: That is a difficult question and one that people have wrestled with from 1863 onwards. Not very long after the battle, people were already hoping to use Gettysburg as a platform for promoting reconciliation between North and South. As early as 1869, a promoter in Gettysburg wanted to arrange for all the senior officers who had been involved in the battle, North and South, to come to the Gettysburg battlefield to point out what they considered to be the significant moments of the battle. And they would do it together. George Meade for the Union Army and Robert E. Lee for the Confederate Army were invited. It did not quite work out, because Lee declined and would not come. His response was that reconciliation would be better achieved by simply burying the memory of the past.
In the 1880s, groups of veterans from both Union and Confederate armies came to Gettysburg and were supposed to have reunions of the Blue and Gray there. Almost invariably, these reunions broke down in quarrels between the old veterans. In many cases, Union veterans refused to countenance the notion that their Confederate counterparts would be allowed to parade through the town displaying Confederate flags. They had fought against those flags, and the flags represented treason to them. They were not going to participate in that. So, while from time to time well-intentioned people were able to stage photographs of Confederate and Union veterans shaking hands over the wall at The Angle on the Gettysburg Battlefield, what surrounded those photographs was a good deal less pleasant and sometimes not entirely printable.
This persisted straight up until 1913, when a tremendous jamboree was planned at Gettysburg that would bring Union and Confederate veterans of the Civil War together on the fiftieth anniversary of the battle for a great display of reconciliation. Even there, matters broke down because the Union veterans insisted on no display of Confederate flags. President Woodrow Wilson, a Southerner, was invited to address the gathering. Wilson took the train into Gettysburg, made his brief speech, got on the train and left. But when he came to make his speech, Confederate veterans who had concealed Confederate flags all burst out with these flags to wave them at the president because Wilson was from the South. This created tremendous consternation among the Union veterans who refused to applaud Wilson’s speech. So even in 1913 there was still great disagreement.
The last of these reunions occurs in 1938. And, once again, the effort was made to promote reconciliation. By this time, the number of veterans who survived to attend were very few. Most of them were very old, and there was not much concern of trouble to break out. But the real irony of the Eternal Peace Monument is that it is dedicated there in the summer of 1938. What happens in the Fall of 1938? The Munich crisis. So here, a monument that was supposed to testify to eternal peace finds that peace is very short-lived. And the irony of that monument is that a peace monument turned out only to be a presage of a great World War that would very shortly engulf the entire planet.
HM: As a young student, I first developed a fascination with Gettysburg after reading Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels. Soon after, I watched the Ken Burns series on the Civil War and eventually started picking up academic books and studying the entire subject. The novel served as one of the main entry points to what developed into a larger love of history. Over the years, I have used excerpts from the book in my own classroom. Today, some may consider The Killer Angels to be inappropriate or even offensive for educational use. In the current political and social climate where symbols, literature, entertainment, and even history are under critical evaluation, do you think these debates pose a greater potential for healing or for harm?
Guelzo: I think they pose a tremendous threat of harm, because what they do is to use historical relics, documents, personalities, and records as stalking horses for modern political energies. When we do that, we pervert the study of the history into a pursuit of our own personal fantasies. And this is not a new problem. If anything, this has been one of the difficulties that historical writing has always struggled against: to prevent political agendas from prostituting history into mere agencies for politics. The immediate impact of this causes people to polarize their versions of history and hurl them at each other like brickbats. The long-term response is for people to treat history as radioactive and not to want to touch it at all. Partisanship, and the conversion of history into partisanship, rarely accomplishes anything more than giving in to the immediate moment, which in turn creates an opportunity for bad temper. The long-term difficulty is that it convinces people to stay away from the history.
But to lose our grip on our history is simply not an option. For Americans, our history is bound up with our identity. We do not identify ourselves by race, by religion, by ethnicity, by language, by culture. What identifies Americans is a historical moment in 1776 when we reached out and affirmed, as an issue of natural right and natural law, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When we look for an American identity, it doesn’t come in flesh and blood and soil. It comes from ideas rooted in a history. When our history becomes, for whatever reason, something we are afraid to touch, something that becomes radioactive, then we cost ourselves a great deal of what our identity is. And that is a tremendous loss, because confusion ensues. And if we are confused as to what it means to be Americans, then we have lost the fundamental reason that we hold out this beacon of liberty to the world. And in a sense, what we have done is to recall the final exam that we passed in 1863 and to mark it down as failed. That is not a result that I am at all happy to see happen.
For Americans, our history is bound up with our identity. We do not identify ourselves by race, by religion, by ethnicity, by language, by culture. What identifies Americans is a historical moment in 1776 when we reached out and affirmed, as an issue of natural right and natural law, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
HM: You have addressed radical changes in school curriculum such as “The 1619 Project” in some detail with a series of articles and recent interviews. Adoption of some of these changes would minimize or eliminate the deeper lessons of historical events such as Gettysburg. What advice would you have for concerned parents or young history teachers who feel pressured to accept or recast history?
Guelzo: In practical terms, I would advise parents and I would advise teachers to dwell on one word: controversial. There’s nothing that disturbs the peace and equanimity of municipalities, school boards, and other governing agencies more than the idea that they have just swallowed something that is “controversial.” And indeed The 1619 Project is controversial. It sets out, and announces itself, to be a controversy. If people understand that what they are being offered in The 1619 Project is something that is controversial, that immediately is going to make people uncomfortable about embracing it, as they should be.
In a larger sense, what I encourage both parents and teachers to do is to find historical alternatives. Because there are other books and resources. I would recommend, for example, Wilfred McClay’s new American history Land of Hope, which offers a gracefully written, remarkably thorough, but also inspiring, journey through the American epic. I think that a school could scarcely do better either through its parents, its teachers, or its school board, than to look seriously at adopting McClay’s book. I offer that only as one example. There are several other examples that could be proposed. A number of us are currently working on and creating curricula that I hope will be made available for public access over the next six to eight months. But there are alternatives in warding off the rush that is going to be experienced in some quarters to embrace The 1619 Project as though it was history, when it really is a gigantic form of conspiracy theory.
HM: Are there any other valuable lessons from Gettysburg that you think America could find inspiration or benefit from knowing?
Guelzo: One lesson that I dwell on a good deal is rooted in the experience of the second day’s fighting. On July 2nd, 1863, Robert E. Lee launched a gigantic flanking attack on the Army at the Potomac. It was a hammer blow that came within inches of success— a success that would have shattered the Army at the Potomac and compelled its abandonment of Gettysburg. It failed because, in large measure, numerous ordinary soldiers and the officers took matters in their own hands and saved the day. I think of individuals like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and his 20th Maine Regiment. They are probably the most famous of those who fought on the Union side at Gettysburg. But Chamberlain was one who on his own hook and by his own decisions facing the possibility of being overwhelmed by Confederate attack, ordered a counterattack with bayonets. What did he know about bayonets? He was a rhetoric professor from Bowdoin College who had no experience of military life. Yet he acted on the only impulses he knew, which turned out to be just exactly the right impulses. And the great thing is that Chamberlain, although he is probably the most celebrated that way because of The Killer Angels, was by no means alone.
Also on Little Round Top where Chamberlain and his regiment fought was Strong Vincent, the commander of the brigade to which Chamberlain belonged. There was Paddy O’Rorke and his 140th New York coming to the rescue at just the right moment. It cost O’Rorke his life, but his regiment threw back a Confederate attack that would have overwhelmed the other spur of Little Round Top. I go on from point to point to point, to the First Minnesota taking on an entire Confederate brigade in the center of the battlefield, to Samuel Sprigg Carroll and his three regiments sprinting across Cemetery Hill at just the right moment to repel a Confederate attack that could have overcome the federal position at its other flank. And this kept happening all through the late afternoon and early evening of July 2. Ordinary soldiers, line officers, on their own, without direction from the generals, somehow looking at situations, sizing them up, making the right decision and doing it on their own accord.
I think those are some of the most remarkable stories to emerge out of the Gettysburg battle. It displayed not only the courage of those individuals, but it displayed something about the American temperament itself. The ordinary American rises to the demand of situations, looks around, sums things up, makes the decision, lives with the consequences, and somehow miraculously does it right time and time and time again. That, to me, is one really great lesson to bring out of Gettysburg.
Howard L. Muncy has taught United States history for seventeen years at the secondary level. He has served as president for the Kentucky Association of the Teachers of History (KATH) and was awarded the 2016 James Madison Memorial Fellowship for the state of Kentucky. He holds a … READ MORE
Allen Guelzo is Director of the Politics and Statesmanship Initiative in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, and Senior Research Scholar in the Council of Humanities, at Princeton University. He is the author of Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (2000… READ MORE